
\begin{landscape}\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Effect of ideological incongruence and race on proportion selecting candidate}
\centering
\fontsize{9}{11}\selectfont
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}[t]{lc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{ } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{DV: Proportion selecting candidate profile} \\
\cmidrule(l{3pt}r{3pt}){2-2}
  & &nbsp;(1)\\
\midrule
Absolute ideological distance & −0.425***\\
 & (0.042)\\
Black candidate & 0.081*\\
 & (0.036)\\
Absolute ideological distance $\times$ Black candidate & 0.116+\\
 & (0.065)\\
Intercept & 0.599***\\
 & (0.021)\\
Num.Obs. & 3624\\
R2 & 0.060\\
\bottomrule
\multicolumn{2}{l}{\rule{0pt}{1em}+ p < 0.1, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001}\\
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item \textit{Note: } 
\item Absolute ideological distance scaled is from 0 (perfect congruence) to 1 (maximum incongruence). Standard errors are clustered at participant level. Data are weighted for representativeness by age, gender, and region. Data are from Lucid study 2 and the California voter survey.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
